| Author |
Message |
|
JimC
|
Post subject: ACLU & Test Cases  Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:57 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
|
|
With all the "test cases" mentioned here from time to time, Where you can carry etc etc Fair, MOA etc etc
Wonder if the ACLU would help us? Our rights are being violated by givernment at times.
Maybe their lawyers could clear this up for us
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:02 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 1263
Location: MN
|
|
It has been my impression that the ACLU is interested in First Amendment violations and discrimination against those deemed minorities (women, LGBT persons, people of African, Native American or Latin descent, people practicing religions other than Christianity) and has no interest whatever in violations of any of the other amendments, particularly when the victim is white, male, straight and/or Christian.
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
phorvick
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:03 pm |
|
| Forum Moderator |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
|
Tick Slayer wrote: It has been my impression that the ACLU is interested in First Amendment violations and discrimination against those deemed minorities (women, LGBT persons, people of African, Native American or Latin descent, people practicing religions other than Christianity) and has no interest whatever in violations of any of the other amendments, particularly when the victim is white, male, straight and/or Christian. How does the ACLU count to 10?
1-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:11 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 1263
Location: MN
|
The ACLU's position statement on Second Amendment rights (at aclu.org)
Quote: ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:05 pm |
|
| Wise Elder |
 |
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
|
Quote: ACLU POSITION
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue. Exactly why I dropped my support of the ACLU in 1983.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bensdad
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:13 pm |
|
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
|
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller- ... /#comments
I feel like this has been posted here before. Oh well, here it is again. Good luck finding a post in support of the ACLU... ON THEIR OWN BLOG!
_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EAGSMN
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:21 pm |
|
| Journeyman Member |
 |
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:29 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Have Gun Will Travel
|
|
Are we talking about the Anti- Christian-Lawyers-Union?
_________________
Never leave home without it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bensdad
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:25 pm |
|
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
|
EAGSMN wrote: Are we talking about the Anti- Christian-Lawyers-Union? No silly... the American Criminal Liberation Union.
_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
|
Well then we need a Black Woman with a carry permit to file complaints she's being discriminated against
Tick Slayer wrote: It has been my impression that the ACLU is interested in First Amendment violations and discrimination against those deemed minorities (women, LGBT persons, people of African, Native American or Latin descent, people practicing religions other than Christianity) and has no interest whatever in violations of any of the other amendments, particularly when the victim is white, male, straight and/or Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EAGSMN
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
| Journeyman Member |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:29 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Have Gun Will Travel
|
bensdad wrote: EAGSMN wrote: Are we talking about the Anti- Christian-Lawyers-Union? No silly... the American Criminal Liberation Union. Sounds like what they will be doing in St. Paul for sure.
_________________
Never leave home without it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:06 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
|
|
If you get arrested for wearing your "Slowballed by Pawlenty" shirt in St. Paul, the ACLU volunteers will defend your right to wear the shirt and otherwise protest the denial of your 2A rights.
(Which is more help than you will get from the NRA or any other organization.)
I'm more worried about the willingness of people to believe that the protesters are criminals. That attitude is an example of why we need the ACLU. Like most things, it's not perfect, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gunflint
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:05 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Duluth
|
|
If some of the protesters break the law then they are criminals.
_________________
"I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle" Sitting Bull
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JGalt
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:28 am |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:47 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Wouldn't you like to know...
|
Dick Unger wrote: I'm more worried about the willingness of people to believe that the protesters are criminals. I'm sure there are some blockheads who actually believe that the simple act of protesting is a criminal one, but for the most part, it is the folks who block traffic and do property damage that us rational people believe are criminals. Oh wait - they are!
I also understand that it is a relatively small percentage of the total number of protesters who engage in criminal acts, but as in many cases, the impression given of the 'whole' of a set of people is determined by the actions of 'a few'. It would be different if, say, we had news coverage of a large number of the non-criminal kinds of protesters physically picking up and moving a group of thugs / anarchists who have set up a 'human chain' across a street so as to block traffic. This would build respect for the 'protest community' as a whole in those of us who are merely witnesses to the event. But we all know that just ain't gonna happen. So, the 'whole' gets tarnished by 'the few' - and I don't see that changing any time soon...
Whether or not this is 'right' or 'fair' is irrelevant. It is reality.
_________________
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone1980
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:53 am |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:19 pm
Posts: 2305
|
JGalt wrote: I also understand that it is a relatively small percentage of the total number of protesters who engage in criminal acts, So the news should probably point out that there is a relatively small number of trouble makers. And then list of the names of the groups who didn't get into any trouble, while failing to mention the groups that caused trouble. This will avoid giving a boost to the violent groups. It is the same idea of not mentioning suicides in public places, which the media already does. And yes I know the above will never be applied to the violent protesters. JGalt wrote: It would be different if, say, we had news coverage of a large number of the non-criminal kinds of protesters physically picking up and moving a group of thugs / anarchists who have set up a 'human chain' across a street so as to block traffic. That isn't their job. The other protesters only responsibility is to have a position to communicate and then don't do anything illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:22 am |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
|
|
Stay On Topic!
I'm not talking about protesters, religion etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 141 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
